Mr. W. S. MacLeay on some Remarks of M. Virey. 49 



quence of M. Virey's charge, to show why it was not cited in my paper in 

 the Linnean Transactions. 



Now it will be observed, that 1 am not absurd enough in that paper to 

 attribute to myself the first distinction of the ideas of affinity and analogy ; 

 , as ever since the origin of the two words, I suppose the first denoted the 

 union between different subjects, and the latter expressed some resem- 

 blance between them in particular circumstances. I do not even profess 

 in that paper to have been the first person who made this distinction in 

 natural history. I mention Pallas and Desfontaines, and might have 

 added the still more distinguished names of Aristotle and Linnaeus, as 

 having all remarked strong analogies between beings widely asunder as to 

 affinity. I only observe, that " the nature of the difference which exists 

 in natuml history between affinity and analogy was, I believe, first dis- 

 covered in studying Lamellicorn insects." Now, so far is M. Virey 

 from displaying the least knowledge of the nature of this difference, that 

 it was not even in my power to cite him as being acquainted with the 

 existence of the difference ;* since, throughout this very article Animal, 

 which, however, undoubtedly contains a number of most valuable re- 

 marks, he considers the words affinity and analogy to be synonymous. 

 And on referring to his long article, Rapport, in the same work, where 

 we might have expected him to have separated and defined these two 

 kinds of relation, if he really understood them when he wrote the article 

 Animal, we find that he uses the one word for the other indiscrimi- 



* See Diet. cCHist. Nat. Vol. II. p. 30, art. Animal.— S'il y a des analogies 

 bien remarquables entre les Animaux Vertebres, et si I'on descend sans trop 

 d'efForts de I'organisation du Mammifere a celle de I'oiseau, ensuite au reptile 

 et au poisson, la chaine est au-del^ brusquement rompue." And so every where 

 he talks of analogies when he means true aflfinities; and whenever he alludes 

 to what are real relations of analogy, he takes them for relations of affinity. 

 Nay, what is ludicrous, he is so little aware, even at this day, of the nature of 

 analogy and affinity, that in this very Critique in the Bulletin des Sciences, he 

 says : " MM. MacLeay, Agardh, Fries, &c. reconnaissent qu'il existe des 

 groupes naturels d'etres ayant entre eux des ressemblances ou affinitis plus ou 

 moins parfaites, mais que ces groupes ne montrent que des analogies plus ou 

 moins eloignees avec d'autres groupes." And this he states to be his 0"-7n idea of 

 the matter; in which respect it is not for me to contradict him. But I trust I 

 may be allowed to say, that such ideas of affinity and analogy were never mine. 



D 



